1 / 42

BMSB potential impact in hazelnut and berry crops

BMSB potential impact in hazelnut and berry crops. Biology, Ecology, and Management of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in Orchard Crops, Small Fruit, Grapes, Vegetables, and Ornamentals USDA-NIFA SCRI Coordinated Agricultural Project .

jarvis
Télécharger la présentation

BMSB potential impact in hazelnut and berry crops

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BMSB potential impact in hazelnut and berry crops Biology, Ecology, and Management of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in Orchard Crops, Small Fruit, Grapes, Vegetables, and Ornamentals USDA-NIFA SCRI Coordinated Agricultural Project Vaughn Walton*, Chris Hedstrom, NikWiman, Elizabeth Tomasino, PallaviMohekar, Betsey Miller, Danny Dalton, Riki York *Horticulture Department, Oregon State University, waltonv@hort.oregonstate.edu

  2. BMSB in the Willamette Valley

  3. BMSB Hazelnut Damage study 2012-2013 Analysis for 2012 and 2013 data • Weeks of exposure were classified into nut developmental stage • Proportions of damaged nuts per stage were compared to control sleeves Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep

  4. Developmental stage based on Thompson 1981 Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep

  5. * * * pre-expansion shell expansion control maturation kernel expansion Developmental stage *indicates a p-value < 0.005, Exact Binomial Test compared to control of same year Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep

  6. Methods : effect of shell thickness • Filbertworm and weevil infestation was reduced in cultivars with thicker shells (Chambers et al. 2011, Jones et al. 1992) • 3 Cultivars to represent three thicknesses: • Thick:Siciliana • Medium: Barcelona • Thin: Casina (CloscaMolla replaced Casina: Casina in 2013) • Measured at basar scar, side walls and bottom quarter • Percentage of damaged nuts compared between cultivars basal scar sidewall bottom quarter Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep

  7. Damage by cultivar, field trial 2012 Med Thin Thick Med Thin Thick Med Thin Thick Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep

  8. Methods : effect of shell thickness • Feeding adult BMSB were given a choice of two nuts • Thick vs. Thin • Thick vs. Med • Med vs. Thin • Thin vs. shelled • Insects were allowed to feed for one week • Nuts were examined for number of sheaths, corked kernels and shell thickness • “Thick” choice not always thicker: analyzed by linear regression, shell thickness vs. corkspots Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep

  9. R2=0.04519 Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep

  10. Results • Damage • All stages of hazelnuts tested were susceptible to feeding damage • Early season feeding during shell expansion resulted in blank nuts, • feeding during kernel formation and maturation results in shriveled kernels or corking damage in both seasons tested. • Shell Thickness • No evidence of a relationship between hazelnut shell thickness and resulting feeding damage in field trials or lab trial • Feeding sheath on outside of nut not always indicative of feeding event or nut damage Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep

  11. Overall Summary: BMSB impact All tested are susceptible to feeding damage Early season feeding – blanks, shriveling Late season feeding – corking Development stage has direct impact on symptoms

  12. Preliminary field observations High number in abandoned orchard. BMSB in traps in monitored commercial orchard

  13. Preliminary field observations

  14. Preliminary field observations BMSB pyramid trap No BMSB found: 5% blank nuts BMSB presence: 25% blank nuts

  15. BMSB in berry crops, 2013

  16. Controlled BMSB feeding studies on Blueberry Biology, Ecology, and Management of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in Orchard Crops, Small Fruit, Grapes, Vegetables, and Ornamentals USDA-NIFA SCRI Coordinated Agricultural Project

  17. Controlled BMSB feeding studies on Blueberry Biology, Ecology, and Management of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in Orchard Crops, Small Fruit, Grapes, Vegetables, and Ornamentals USDA-NIFA SCRI Coordinated Agricultural Project

  18. BMSB in Vineyards and Wines Biology, Ecology, and Management of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in Orchard Crops, Small Fruit, Grapes, Vegetables, and Ornamentals USDA-NIFA SCRI Coordinated Agricultural Project

  19. Oregon: Populations build up in late season Photo: Walton

  20. Photo’s: Walton Pheromone-baited pyramid traps and systematic beat sheeting

  21. Presence of stylet sheaths Photo’s, Chris Hedstrom

  22. Photo, Walton

  23. Treatments: 0 BMSB = Control • 1 BMSB = Low • 2 BMSB = High • Three distinct exposure periods: • Pea size (Jul 23, 2012; Jul 15, 2013), • Véraison (Aug 25, 2012; Aug 4, 2013) • Pre-harvest(Sept, 28 2012; Sept 15, 2013) • Clusters exposed to BMSB for 7 days, sleeve feeding • Analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD • to separate means Controlled BMSB Exposure 2012, 2013 Photo, Walton

  24. Crop qualitymost important • Crop quality • Mean cluster weight • Mean number of berries per cluster • Mean weight of berries • Mean number of dropped berries at harvest. • Mean number of BMSB punctures per cluster. • Mean number of discolored berries per cluster. • Mean number of raisin berries per cluster. Determination of direct impact:

  25. Dr. Elizabeth Tomasino • New OSU faculty with wine sensory analysis and flavor chemistry expertise • Research question: will BMSB contamination result in wine taint? • High quality Pinot Noir • Donated by Adelsheim Vineyard

  26. Step 1: Characterize BMSB defensive compounds • GCMS chromatogram of the volatile aroma compounds excreted by “stressed” BMSB WEAK AROMA: “citrus”, “fresh” STRONG AROMA: “pungent”, “cilantro” Tetradecane Trans-2-decenal Dodecane Trans-2-octenal

  27. Treatments • Stinkbugs added to Pinot noir grapes before wine processing • Taint in destemmer • Taint in pressing (dead and some alive) • Treatments: • Control – no bugs • (T1) – 1 bug per 4 clusters • (T2) – 1 bug per 2 clusters Photo, Wiman • Fairly high densities, but not entirely unreasonable considering potential BMSB densities

  28. Taint in destemming Photo, Walton Photo, Wiman 1,600 stink bugs Destemmer We found BMSB surviving destemmingprocess

  29. Cold soak process containing bugs Simulating cluster contamination Photo, Walton Taint compounds released again during pressing, despite majority dead bug presence

  30. What made it into finished wine? • GCMS chromatogram of the finished wine (and at fermentation intervals). Present in wine, unknown effect Main taint components Tetradecane Trans-2-decenal Dodecane Trans-2-octenal

  31. Sensory Panel Evaluation A) Difference testing (triangle tests) showed that consumers could tell a difference between the treatment wines and the control (significant at α=0.05). A B B) Consumer rejection threshold found to be very close to the detection threshold, even even low amounts of BMSB taint have a negative impact on Pinot noir quality.

  32. Wine and fresh berry taint • BMSB taint is real! Other processes and varieties may change the results. • Masked fruity characteristics of the wine • Contrasts with results from MD • Consumer rejection: as soon as it’s detectable, it’s rejectable • Opportunity to link detection thresholds in wine to density of insects in the field • This may become the treatment threshold for vineyard managers

  33. Web Resources http://horticulture.oregonstate.edu/group/brown-marmorated-stink-bug-oregon BMSB@oregonstate.edu

More Related